Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple Fires Back at Spotify for Asking for 'Preferential Treatment'

buzzfeed.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 222 posts

Re: Apple Fires Back at Spotify for Asking for 'Preferential Treatment'

#21

Post by basch »

DominikR wrote: post #9

I believe that in this specific case Spotify makes a very compelling argument. App publishers that do not directly compete with Apple have a level playing field although the Apple tax certainly hurts. But Spotify directly competes with Apple, and while Apple does not have to pay this tax as they can (probably) use their own billing services cheaper, Spotify couldn't do the same even if they implemented their own bill…

30% isnt a payment processing fee, its a commission + infrastructure tax.

You make money off your app? Because apple made it discoverable in the app store! You make money off your app, pay a share back for os/api r&d!

Re: Apple Fires Back at Spotify for Asking for 'Preferential Treatment'

#22

Post by mhomde »

fhood wrote: post #2

Who is the bad-guy here? (Both probably, but who is the worse bad-guy?) Obviously Apple's letter makes it seem as though they are being perfectly reasonable, but neither of the articles that I read have provided much analysis.

Apple is being a bit greedy when it comes to subscriptions for high-grossing services IMO. Spotify already has razor thin margins and paying out minuscule licensing fees to content producers, it's not viable to pay out 15-30% off the top to Apple.

However, Apple clearly should be able to require a fee for providing the marketplace and payment framework, and you can see their point in not wanting apps to circumvent that to make it simpler for users to be able to manage their subscriptions easily.

Some kind of cap and/or transaction fee seems more reasonable and would be win-win in the long run. You get a bad taste in your mouth when it feels like Apple is using their walled garden to strong arm competition. You can't compete when your largest rival eliminates your profits.

In the end I think it's to Apple's detriment to play aggressively with content providers in their ecosystem when they're in such fierce competition with Android.

Re: Apple Fires Back at Spotify for Asking for 'Preferential Treatment'

#23

Post by vitd »

pen2l wrote: post #12
endlessvoid94 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like what features?

Funny you ask -- because boy do I have an answer. Last week I officially switched (reluctantly and with a bad taste in my mouth) from Spotify to Apple Music. Why? Simply because when I'm driving I want to dictate by voice command what song I want to play. I could not do this with Spotify, that's why I switched. Next time I won't get an iphone because of the bad taste this experience has left me (the worst part is app…

I'm curious - I see that Midomi Sound Hound now has voice recognition in iOS 9, which I assume it gets from either licensing Google Now, Cortana, or directly from the companies that provide functionality for those. Why couldn't Spotify just do that? Would that solve your problem?

Re: Apple Fires Back at Spotify for Asking for 'Preferential Treatment'

#24

Post by pen2l »

vitd wrote: post #23
pen2l wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny you ask -- because boy do I have an answer. Last week I officially switched (reluctantly and with a bad taste in my mouth) from Spotify to Apple Music. Why? Simply because when I'm driving I want to dictate by voice command what song I want to play. I could not do this with Spotify, that's why I switched. Next time I won't get an iphone because of the bad taste this experience has left me (the worst part is app…

I'm curious - I see that Midomi Sound Hound now has voice recognition in iOS 9, which I assume it gets from either licensing Google Now, Cortana, or directly from the companies that provide functionality for those. Why couldn't Spotify just do that? Would that solve your problem?

You would still need to find your way to the Spotify app though, so that defeats the point -- because you have to use your hand to unlock the phone, open the app, etc.

Compare this with being able to play a song by simply saying "Hey Siri play Beatles' Rain"... and that is it.

Re: Apple Fires Back at Spotify for Asking for 'Preferential Treatment'

#25

Post by tdkl »

dirkdk wrote: post #6

Regardless of pricing, this is Windows/Internet explorer vs. Netscape all over. Easy to see Apple introduce features tied to Apple Music that Spotify can't because it doesn't have the same control over iOS

Except Apple/iOS doesn't have the majority market share as MS did. (not that I don't despise this, just stating).

Re: Apple Fires Back at Spotify for Asking for 'Preferential Treatment'

#26

Post by DominikR »

basch wrote: post #21
DominikR wrote: post #9

I believe that in this specific case Spotify makes a very compelling argument. App publishers that do not directly compete with Apple have a level playing field although the Apple tax certainly hurts. But Spotify directly competes with Apple, and while Apple does not have to pay this tax as they can (probably) use their own billing services cheaper, Spotify couldn't do the same even if they implemented their own bill…

30% isnt a payment processing fee, its a commission + infrastructure tax. You make money off your app? Because apple made it discoverable in the app store! You make money off your app, pay a share back for os/api r&d!

Where can I find more information about this infrastructure tax?

Because I highly doubt that Apple actually needs 30% to pay for the app store infrastructure.

And why are you mixing this with the OS API? I could just as well say that Apple needs some kind of OS anyways to be able to sell their expensive hardware.

Also there are certain categories of apps that are allowed to use other billing providers. Why don't they have to pay for the OS API's and R&D?

Re: Apple Fires Back at Spotify for Asking for 'Preferential Treatment'

#27

Post by coldtea »

cloudjacker wrote: post #19

Apple's App Store has always been an antitrust violation waiting to happen. and by happen, I mean filed in a court. There is nothing "applied equally" to other developers. Onlookers will say developers agreed to the contract, so no sympathy, a Federal Judge on the other hand will rip that contract to shreds and take a dim view on Apple's practices. And no, Google Play's robo rejector isn't exempt.

>Apple's App Store has always been an antitrust violation waiting to happen.

There's nothing "antitrust" about the App Store operation, since Apple isn't a monopoly -- it's in fact a minority player in the mobile market. (And no, you can't be a "monopoly on your own platform" -- it has to be the overall market).

In fact game console manufactures (among many other fields) have historically had much more draconian restrictions and cuts) that the quite liberal App Store.

And it having 1 million apps and having pushed 50 billion dollars to developers doesn't really paint it as a "restricted area with tight controls where only Apple benefits" either.

Re: Apple Fires Back at Spotify for Asking for 'Preferential Treatment'

#28

Post by dandelany »

cassieramen wrote: post #13

How exactly does Apple's payment system work for companies that are cross platform? If I have a Dropcam subscription and am using the ios app, is Dropcam paying Apple 15% of my subscription cost? That seems nuts.

Yes - and it's 30%. Previously, Spotify would charge $9.99/month for a subscription through their website, or $12.99 for a subscription purchased through the iOS app, to cover this cost. In the most recent version of the iOS app, they decided to disallow in-app subscriptions entirely and push all subscriptions to the web app. IIUC this is the app update that has been blocked by Apple...

(disclaimer: I work for Spotify)

Re: Apple Fires Back at Spotify for Asking for 'Preferential Treatment'

#30

Post by ashwinl »

mackey wrote: post #18
cassieramen wrote: post #13

How exactly does Apple's payment system work for companies that are cross platform? If I have a Dropcam subscription and am using the ios app, is Dropcam paying Apple 15% of my subscription cost? That seems nuts.

If you subscribe through the iOS app, Apple gets 30% of the subscription. That 30% drops to 15% after a year. You also can't advertise signing up for the subscription outside of the app.

>> You also can't advertise signing up for the subscription outside of the app.

Amazon Prime does this, no. In the Amazon iOS app, you can browse, but cannot buy items. You can still login using your Prime account.

Post reply on HN